Read Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism Online
Authors: Peter Marshall
Tags: #Non-Fiction, #Intellectual History, #20th Century, #Philosophy, #v.5, #Political Science, #Amazon.com, #Retail
Stirner finds no justification for the State in the theory of sovereignty and the Social Contract so dear to Rousseau. To claim that the State has a legitimate right to rule and make law because it expresses the will of the sovereign overlooks the irreducible fact that only the individual ego has a claim to sovereignty. Even if it could be shown that every individual had expressed the same will, any law enforced by the State would freeze the will and make the past govern the future. As for democracy based on majority rule, it leaves the dissenting minority in the same position as in an absolute monarchy. Since sovereignty inevitably involves domination and submission, Stirner concludes that there can be no such thing as a ‘free State’. This criticism of the social contract theory is undoubtedly as trenchant as Godwin’s.
In reality, the State is controlled by the bourgeoisie who developed it in the struggle against the privileged classes. The class of labourers therefore remains a ‘power hostile to this State, this State of possessors, this “citizen kingship”’. The State also claims a monopoly of legitimate force: ‘The State practises “violence”, the individual must not do so. The State’s behaviour is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime”.’
39
But the State is not merely a legal superstructure imposed on society, issuing orders as laws; it penetrates into the most intimate relationships of its subjects and creates a false bonding; it is ‘a tissue and plexus of dependence and adherence; it is a
belonging together
, a holding together…’
40
Stirner makes it crystal-clear that ‘I am free in
no
State’, and declares that no one has any business ‘to command
my
actions, to say what course I shall pursue and set up a code to govern it.’
41
But rather than turning to society as a healthy and beneficial alternative to the State, Stirner sees existing society as a coercive association, demanding that each member think of the well-being of the whole. Given the ontological priority of the
individual, there is no organic society which can preserve individual freedom. The only way forward is therefore to transform both existing society and the State which by their very natures oppose and oppress the individual.
Given his account of human nature, Stirner, no less than Hobbes, sees society as a war of all against all. As each individual tries to satisfy his desires he inevitably comes into conflict with others: ‘Take hold, and take what you require! With this, the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.’
42
But while Stirner’s view of human nature as selfish, passionate and power-seeking is close to that of Hobbes, they come to opposite conclusions. Where Hobbes called for an all-powerful State resting on the sword to enforce its laws and to curb the unruly passions of humanity, Stirner believed that it is possible and desirable to form a new association of sovereign individuals:
There we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this ‘human society’, I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; that is, I annihilate it, and form in its place the
Union of Egoists.
43
Unlike society which acts as a fused group, crystallized, fixed and dead, the union of egoists is a spontaneous and voluntary association drawn together out of mutual interest. Only in such a union will the individual be able to assert himself as unique because it will not possess him; ‘you possess it or make use of it.’
44
Although it will expand personal freedom, its principal object is not liberty but ownness, to increase the personal ownership of property. By voluntary agreement, it will enable the individual to increase his or her power, and by combined force, it will accomplish more than he or she could on their own. From an extreme individualist position, Stirner therefore destroys existing society only to reinvent it in a new form. Conscious egoists combine in a union because they realize that ‘they care best for their welfare if they
unite
with others’.
45
As in Adam Smith’s market model of society, individuals co-operate only so far as it enables them to satisfy their own desires.
Although Stirner shares many of the assumptions of classical liberalism in his view of the self-interested, calculating individual, he did not in fact embrace its political theory. Political liberalism, he declared, abolished social inequalities; social liberalism (socialism) made people propertyless; and humanist liberalism, made people godless. While these goals were progressive to a degree all three creeds allowed the master to rise again in the form of the State.
Stirner does not endorse capitalism or the Protestant ethic behind it. The ascetic and striving capitalist is not for Stirner: ‘Restless acquisition
does not let us take breath, take a calm
enjoyment
: we do not get the comfort of our possessions.’ He is extremely critical of the factory system which alienates workers from themselves and their labour: ‘when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to
machine-like labour
amounts to the same thing as slavery.’ He accepts that only labour creates value. But when one performs mechanically a routine task a person’s labour ‘is nothing by itself, has no object
in itself
, is nothing complete in itself; he labours only into another’s hands, and is
used
(exploited) by this other.’
46
And to complete his remarkable analysis of alienation and exploitation, Stirner argues that just as work should be fulfilling and useful to oneself, so one should enjoy the fruits of one’s labour.
At the same time, Stirner rejects the ‘sacred’ right of private property. He points out that Proudhon is illogical in calling property ‘theft’; the concept ‘theft’ is only possible if one allows validity to the concept ‘property’ in the first place. He does not therefore call like Proudhon for possession as opposed to property but believes that they coincide since property is merely the expression for ‘
unlimited dominion
over somewhat (thing, beast, man)’ which I can dispose of as I see fit. It is not right but only might which legitimizes property and I am therefore entitled ‘to every property to which I –
empower
myself’.
47
But surely if everyone tried to seize whatever they desired for themselves, an unequal society would result? Not so, says Stirner. In his proposed union of egoists, all would be able to secure enough property for themselves so that poverty would disappear. Stirner even urges workers to band together and strike to achieve better pay and conditions, and be prepared to use force to change their situation if need be. This did not make him a proto-communist, for he contemptuously dismissed the ‘ragamuffin communism’ of Weitling which would only lead to society as a whole controlling its individual members.
48
While rejecting the social contract of liberal theory, Stirner reintroduces the notion of contract as the basis of social relations between egoists. Stirner’s ‘contract’, however, is a voluntary agreement which is not binding. Egoists meet as rational calculators of their own interests, making agreements between each other. While Stirner claims that this would not involve any sacrifice of personal freedom, it would only be the case if all contracting parties had the same bargaining power, which they clearly do not. The idea of a relationship based on the gift is beyond Stirner’s comprehension.
Since it is the law which defines a crime and the State which punishes the criminal, in a Stateless society comprising unions of egoists there would be no punishment for wrongdoers. Stirner rejects all idea of punishment; it only has meaning when it brings about expiation for injuring something sacred and there is nothing sacred in Stirner’s scheme of things. Nor will
he accept the idea of using curative means to deal with wrongdoers since this is only the reverse side of punishment. Where the latter sees in an action a sin against right, the former takes it as a sin of the wrongdoer against himself. This insight is overlooked by most anarchists who prefer ‘rehabilitation’ to punishment. Rejecting the notion of ‘crime’ and ‘disease’, Stirner insists that no actions are sinful; they either suit me or do not suit me.
In place of punishment, Stirner suggests that individuals take the law into their own hands and demand ‘satisfaction’ for an injury.
49
But while this suggests an authoritarian trend in Stirner’s thought, he maintains that conscious egoists would eventually see the advantage of making peaceful agreements through contract rather than resorting to violence. The aim after all is to enjoy life.
The reason why the State and even formal institutions of society can be done away with and replaced by a union of egoists is because we are more or less equal in power and ability. It is enough for people to become fully and consciously egoist to end the unequal distribution of power which produces a hierarchical society with servants and masters. A long period of preparation and enlightenment is not therefore necessary, as Godwin argues, before establishing a free society. People simply have to recognize what they are: ‘Your nature is, once for all, a human one; you are human natures, human beings. But just because you already are so, you do not still need to become so.’
50
In the ‘war of each against all’, force might be necessary to change society and redistribute wealth. It might also be used to free oneself from the State. The State calls the individual’s violence ‘crime’ and ‘only by crime does he overcome the State’s violence when he thinks that the State is not above him, but he is above the State.’ But this is not the only way; we can withdraw our labour and the State will collapse of itself: ‘The State rests on the –
slavery of labour.
If
labour
becomes
free
, the State is lost.’
51
In the final analysis Stirner goes beyond any violent revolution which seeks to make new institutions in his famous celebration of individual self-assertion and rebellion. He calls on individuals to refuse to be arranged and governed by others:
Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political and social, but (as directed myself and my ownness alone) an
egoistic
purpose and deed.The revolution commands one to make
arrangements
; the insurrection demands that he
rise or exalt himself.
52
Stirner does not celebrate the will to power over others but rather over oneself. If all withdrew into their own uniqueness, social conflict would be diminished and not exacerbated. Human beings might be fundamentally selfish but it is possible to appeal to their selfishness to make contractual agreements among themselves to avoid violence and conflict and to pursue their own selfish interests.
The problem with Stirner is that, given his view of human beings as self-seeking egoists, it is difficult to imagine that in a free society they would not grasp for power and resort to violence to settle disputes. Without the sanction of moral obligation, there is no reason to expect that agreements would be enacted. If such agreements were only kept out of prudence, then it would seem pointless making them in the first place. Again, to say that because human beings have a substantial equality, a truce would emerge in the struggle for power seems unlikely. Finally, an extreme egoist might well find it in his interest to seize State power or manipulate altruists to serve his ends rather than form voluntary unions of free individuals.
Like Hobbes’, Stirner’s model of human nature would seem to reflect the alienated subjectivity of his own society. He applied the assumptions of capitalist economics to every aspect of human existence and reproduced in everyday life what is most vicious in capitalist institutions. As such his view differs little from that of Adam Smith, whose
Wealth of Nations
he translated into German, and he stands in the tradition of possessive individualism.
53
In the final analysis Stirner is not consistent in his doctrine of amoral egoism. The consistent egoist would presumably keep quiet and pursue his own interest with complete disregard for others. Yet by recommending that everyone should become an egoist, Stirner implies a moral ground. A complete egoist might encourage others to act altruistically towards him, but Stirner asks others, ‘Why will you not take courage now to really make
yourselves
the central point and the main thing altogether?’
54
Again, Stirner may reject all objective values, but he celebrates some values, even if they are only egoistic ones. He cannot therefore be called a nihilist for he takes some things seriously, especially the ego.
Although Stirner’s egoist encounters another ‘as an
I against
a You altogether different from me and in opposition to me’, it implies nothing ‘divisive or hostile’.
55
Again, love is selfish exchange, and should be based not on mercy, pity or kindness but ‘demands
reciprocity
(as thou to me, so I to thee), does nothing “gratis”, and may be won and –
bought’.
56
Yet this cynical view did not prevent Stirner from feeling love and dedicating
The Ego and His Own
‘To my sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt’. In his later writing, Stirner even underplays the artificial and calculating nature of his proposed union of egoists, likening it to the companionship of children at play, or the relationship between friends or lovers in which pleasure is the principal motive.
57